User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2020/April

creating articles

Hi please look here, There is no mention of template or category creation here But according to this reference, I am forbidden from both In this talk And I had to accept that But can you help me fix this? Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

M.k.m2003, while your ban only mentions articles, the rationale behind it also applies to other pages, so I recommend that you do not create any pages. Sandstein 12:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you change this ban? For example, a six-month ban M.k.m2003 (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

M.k.m2003, no. Only the community can change a ban it imposed. Sandstein 17:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Rhino Force

Dear Sandstein,

Firstly, I hope you are well and safe in these troubling times?

I logged on and saw you deleted a page I posted, Rhino Force on the 31st of March. I was hoping you would be kind enough to share with me why it was deleted and what would be required if I was to keeping publishing? I appreciate your help as I learn Wiki.

Have a good day.

Kind regards, MichaelDubley (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

MichaelDubley, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhino Force for why tihis article was deleted. You would need to make it pass WP:GNG. Sandstein 17:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Modernponderer (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Avasant Deletion

Dear Sandstein,

It appears that the following site was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avasant

Please note that this page has been up for over 10 years. Can you guide us as to how we can keep this page more relevant? This was not intended to be promotional material but rather specific and factual information regarding the Avasant Company and History.

I appreciate your support to help us reinstate this page and within your policies. If we can reinstate the page, I will have my team update the site with new links of high value.

Regards,

Kevin Kevin S. Parikh, Esq. | CEO & Chairman | AVASANT

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avasant for the reasons for the deletion. Because you have a conflict of interest, see WP:COI, you should not attempt to reinstate or edit the article. If your company is notable enough, somebody neutral will find appropriate sources and recreate the article. Sandstein 16:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Undelete Article Camidoh

Hi Sandstein,

In our previous interaction on why you deleted article Camidoh you stated that if I can get more articles on subject you might reinstate the article. So find attached below list of current articles that speaks to the eligibility of the subject.

• Recent development of the said musician
• Another article about him in Myjoyonline one of Ghana's leading news websites
• This is Ghana's biggest Twi language media house
• This one is from Ghanaweb another news website from Ghana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owula kpakpo (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy to hear more from you with regards to it and our old conversation seems to have been archived by you.

Regards, Owula kpakpo (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Asking those who commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camidoh: @Celestina007 and Versace1608:, what is your view? Sandstein 06:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, thanks for the notification. The sources provided by Owula kpakpo are not enough to justify stand-alone inclusion. The subject still doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The first source cited here is about a list of artists that has benefited from Mr Eazi's empawa platform; the subject is only mentioned in the article and is not discussed. The second source is simply about the subject's philanthropic work; people are not notable simply because they engage in philanthropic causes. The third source is a radio interview; it cannot be used to establish notability because it isn't independent of the subject. I cannot accessed the fourth source.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment — Hello Sandstein, @Versace1608 said it best & I couldn’t have said it any better, as subject of the article still does not satisfy WP:GNG & WP:MUSICBIO & the new sources provided still fails to establish nor prove notability, So unfortunately as of now my take is his/her request be declined.Celestina007 (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for upholding Wikipedia policies on WP:Consensus WP:NOTVOTE on AfDs. I really appreciate the extra efforts, put in explaining your closure in minute details (when needed) and including precedents for guiding the users. You are an inspiration. Cedix (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation

Thank you for the explanation over at Tablighi AFD while closing it. I am not sure if the above barnstar was for the same, but nevertheless, it says what i wanted to convey nicely "including precedents for guiding the users." Not only does the reasoning put forward help me understand this closure, but will aid in the way I think about (difficult) future AFDs I take part in. Thanks! DTM (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tessaracter (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gospel Music Association

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gospel Music Association. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Toa Nidhiki05 13:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sandstein - I've restored this article already; I didn't know a DRV was in the pipeline at the time I did so. Is there any chance you could relink all the links to this article? I don't have an automated tool to do so, and undoing all the edits (I think about 200) is labor-intensive. Chubbles (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Chubbles, no. You restored that article out of process during an ongoing DRV. I find that peculiar on the part of a user with a userbox that reads "This user is disappointed by admins who ignore process." You are welcome to fix the links yourself. Sandstein 20:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not know about the DRV at the time I restored the article; I found out about it because I had just restored the article and found the discussion pointing to the page. But...as you wish. Chubbles (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks. Sorry for potentially lighting up your alerts by reverting the refund to the Gospel Music Association article. You did the right thing by invoking deletion after the AfD closed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Major League issue

Hi Sandstein. I think you closed the DRV exactly correctly, but I also think the old article probably needs to be undeleted and history merged for attribution purposes. And, on top of that, there may be things in the history that don't meet WP:BLP (I think you know the BLP side of this place better than I). It may be that we are in the best place, but at the least creating a dummy edit and listing all the editors that contributed in the edit summary might be the way to go. Article is here: [1]. Hobit (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hobit, you're probably right, but I think that ensuring appropriate attribution is a task for the editor who created the page, Muboshgu. Sandstein 20:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd be happy to do it too. I don't think either of us can get to the deleted article though. Can you cut-and-paste the contributions page and e-mail it to me? If so, I'll take care of it. Hobit (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hobit, sure, but I don't like to use e-mail, so I've put it on your talk page. Sandstein 21:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Hobit (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Electronic Theatre Controls

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electronic_Theatre_Controls_(2nd_nomination)

Why did this entry get deleted without any input from the relevant parties? It looks as if general users killed a niche entry they had zero knowledge of them or their importance. Wikipedia is not just a resource for people today, but a first draft of history for future generations. This decision is erasing history so future generations won't know their past. Wuz314159 (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Wuz314159, the discussion was open for three weeks. That's thrice the usual time of one week, and more than enough for "the relevant parties", whoever they might be, to give input. In addition, no one person or group owns a particular article, see WP:OWN.

Moreover, the purpose of Wikipedia is to collect information already recorded elsewhere. So if we delete information that is not already recorded elsewhere, then by definition it wasn't suitable for Wikipedia to begin with. Sandstein 05:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

AfD closing of ACE Centre

Hi, can you explain your reasoning for your closure of ACE Centre please? Should it not be allowed run for 7 days at least? Also, the Keep !voters have not addressed the concerns on the lack of suitable sources. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The AfD ran for over a month. Several sources have been proposed - whether they are suitable or not is precisely what there's no consensus about. Sandstein 11:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I either misread the date or more likely thought it was still March! :-) Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Afd

Can you detail how you felt no consensus to be the correct outcome of this AfD? The "Keep" supporters included an IP (only to !vote here), and ultimately none of them addressed the actual concerns with the Weak WP:ACTORS and WP:GNG. However, "Delete" supporters have discovered more problems (such as WP:SOAPBOX issues) with the article than what I had. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Akhiljaxxn, the "keep" side proposed various sources as a basis for notability. Whether these are sufficient is what there's no consensus about. But the "keep" arguments aren't so unfounded that I can discount them, and I can't discount IP arguments unless there is evidence of canvassing or socking. Sandstein 08:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The AfD got 4 keep votes and 4 delete votes (excluding the vote of the nominator). One user voted in favor of draftyfying. So overall, 4 users voted in favor of keeping while 6 users voted in favor of deletion. The subject has no reliable sources in the article, and one user provided three sources in AfD, but it was only trivial and routinely. And I think you didn't review these sources nor did you consider the delete vote of the user who reviewed it. If you google the subject, you cannot find any search result about him in detail. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Akhiljaxxn, these are valid arguments to make in an AfD, but they didn't convince enough other editors to establish a rough consensus. AfD is not a vote, so having a majority is not important, and these are questions about which people can disagree in good faith, not questions about which I can confidently say as a closer that one side is in the wrong and the other in the right. Sandstein 06:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

DRV undeletion attribution problem. List of Major League Baseball players suspended for domestic violence

Hi Sandstein.

RE: List of Major League Baseball players suspended for domestic violence

You closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 3#List of Major League Baseball players suspended for domestic violence with "Draft restored ..."

If I understand correctly, you undeleted the G4-ed draft, which was a google-chache copy of the mainspace article, and then moved it into mainspace?

Doesn't this require undeletion of the mainspace deleted versions, for attribution of the authors of the google-cache version?

I found your close of the DRV surprising, in the discussion I had convinced myself that it should not be restored, but I accept that the remedy is to take it to AfD. In preparing to nominate for AfD, I want to review the article history, which is unavailable.

Can you please undelete the deleted versions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, the deleted history is at List of Major League Baseball players investigated for domestic violence. This would need a histmerge, which is a technique I'm not familiar with. Sandstein 14:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein. I guess I can ask User:Anthony Appleyard on his page Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. I gather it is a dangerous thing to do. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• @SmokeyJoe and Sandstein:  Done histmerged Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you Anthony Appleyard. I'm reminded again what a wonderful project this is, some things are so easy! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Trilion Quality Systems (Help Me)

Hi Sandstein,

You deleted my page on Trilion Quality Systems almost a year ago. I was hoping to give it another shot I have gotten more reference links and also stated I am an employee of the company. Do you think I will have a better shot now? Any help is greatly appreciated.

Many thanks, Ben EISdorfer Beneisdorfer (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Beneisdorfer, no, because you should not write about your employer, see WP:COI. Sandstein 18:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for David Purdham

An editor has asked for a deletion review of David Purdham. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Dflaw4: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Purdham. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, Anthony Appleyard, thanks for the ping. Yes, I created the deletion review regarding the AfD on David Purdham. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If you're interested in such things

You're quoted in the media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

AfD No Consensus - Deep Knowledge Ventures

Hi Sandstein Deep Knowledge Ventures sounds a self promotional page, the majority of the claims need to be verified and sourced. For instance, in the first paragraph "DKV's portfolio includes Transplanetary, a Silicon Valley-based space development company that aims to make the global space sector more accessible and attractive." I googled it and I only found their own press release (via BUSINESS WIRE) as a source.

Overall, the page seems just advertising and showcasing and information like their "First Investment in Space" cannot be verified.

Further, the page claims that the one of its subsidiaries "Deep Knowledge Life Sciences (DKLS), a London-based venture fund focused" has a partnership with "scientists" from Oxford and Cambridge. I added a tag but clearly it is a poorly written page.

In 2016 the article was proposed for AfD, but you called there was no consensus.

I read the discussion and those who voted for keeping the page argued that the DKV received some press coverage. But this coverage is always related to a buzz in 2014, never to the investment company. The criterion of notability should be considered in relation to the sector to which the company belong: Finance. I also would like to remind that financial sector is highly regulated and wikipedia might be liable if doesn't verify articles related to financial investments.

I discover the existence of this venture capital firm through an article published by Forbes on a pseudo COVID study. Although the source is reliable, the article is written by one fo the co-founder and managing partner of the group and concerns a study on COVID which doesn't have any scientific credibility. But again, it is not a financial news and the wikipedia article just showcases the investment portfolio of DKV.

In conclusion, do you think the AfD can be repurposed? (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Ms4263nyu (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

My two cents are that this was a reasonable close. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

BD2412 T Thanks for the reply, I agree with you it was a reasonable close, but you also advise to “be aware of Google bias when testing for importance or existence”. If I correctly interpret your thought, the notability of a venture capital should be confirmed by https://www.ft.com/search?q=Deep+Knowledge+Ventures, Wall Street Journal or Bloomberg not by press releases through Google News or Buzzfeed. As you can see from the above links DKV is unknown in the industry. So if the wiki article is on a venture capital then it should be notable in its own sector. In addition, the article is full of unverified facts eg. "partnerships with Oxford and Cambridge" or "first investment on space" and requires at least a serious fact checking. What do you think? All the best! Ms4263nyu (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Ms4263nyu, I don't know what you mean by the AfD being "repurposed". I take note of your arguments, but they did not convince enough other editors to obtain consensus. Sandstein 07:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein Sorry, I meant "Renomination". According to Wiki deletion policy [WP:DPAFD], "after a deletion debate concludes and there is no consensus or the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page". So I wonder if after 4 years and 3 months we can claim that DKV is a solidly notable article.

As I mentioned 1) the page contains unverified information and the only available citations draw on press releases; 2) some editors justified to keep the article as the company might have become more notable in the future 3) but in the meantime anything about the activities of the DKV, its transactions and investments have been acknowledged by the financial press; 4) there is a new spin related to a "scientific" consortium Deep Knowledge Group, DKV is a subsidiary. Maybe DKG might have more relevance and be a more appropriated article. Having said that, I find very intriguing that this consortium and its 10 subsidiaries allegedly claim to have 10 offices across the globe, but for some reasons they do not even have any physical addresses or an email, same for the headquarter in Honk Kong. The only real prove that this consortium (DKV and DKG) is real is a LinkedIn page. Ms4263nyu (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Ms4263nyu, yes, you can renominate the article for deletion after a "no consensus" AfD. Sandstein 10:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein Thank you for the answer. I dislike nominating AfD. But there are several problems beyond the notability of the company. They claim unverified partnerships with Cambridge and Oxford, they do not have a physical address, phone numbers or emails. Last but not least, they claim to have an investment in a "trans-planetary" corporation with a program called SPOCK (!!). It's too funny for being real. I double checked and I couldn't find any sources, just a blog article based on their press release. But I do love the reference to StarTrek and Spock.Ms4263nyu (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Topic Ban Appeal

Hello, Sandstein,

It has been seven months since I was blocked for AP2 Topic Ban violations; you imposed an indefinite AP2 TBAN approximately two years ago, stating that: "these edits wouldn't have warranted an indefinite topic ban by themselves, but they do warrant the restoration of one that was lifted with the expectation of improved behavior." (That, in turn, refers back to an earlier TBAN from more than three years ago, which definitely involved some cringe conduct on my part but which is long enough in the past that the exact details are not super-fresh in my mind.) I would like to appeal this TBAN on the grounds that, for the past seven months, I have been on my absolute best behavior and have stayed far away from anything even remotely related to the AP2 topic area. I would like to make a few general statements, and then I can answer any other questions that you might have about why I should be allowed to resume editing in this topic area.

First, I acknowledge and apologize for my past personal comments directed at User:SPECIFICO and User:My very best wishes. SPECIFICO is a great editor that I have known for years and would like to mend fences with; I do not believe any of the negative things that I said about her during those previous arguments, and am honored that at one point in the not-so-distant past she praised me for my use of academic sources: "I'm familiar with Snoog and with TTAC and I've never seen them agree or even collaborate on anything at all. Both, however, are widely read and tend to take sourcing and detail very seriously." I've interacted even more extensively with My very best wishes over the years; he used to be a fixture on my talk page, the two of us were on the same side during a series of extremely comprehensive talk page discussions at Soviet–Afghan War in 2016 (see the archives here and here), and he defended me at AE on several occasions (most recently in 2018, when he argued against a blanket AP2 TBAN in favor of a narrower restriction). Seven months ago at Icebreaker (Suvorov) I left an offensive and much-discussed edit summary in which I told MVBW to "Stop defending Hitler!" This was an attempt to convey my disappointment in MVBW and my strong disagreement with his views on the Soviet offensive plans controversy, but I realize that it needlessly inflamed and personalized the dispute and only served to kill further discussion. Obviously, given my years-long prior collegial interactions with MVBW, I have never believed that he is a neo-Nazi or bigot of any kind, or that he ever intended to rehabilitate Hitler.

Second, I have no desire to make any edits related to Donald Trump, Russian interference, or the 2020 election and will voluntarily stay away from those articles if the TBAN is vacated. I simply want to get back to making edits backed by academic sources to historical articles such as Korean War, where I rewrote the section on war casualties a little over seven months ago, prior to being blocked for that and other TBAN violations. (The edits have remained intact and been expanded on since by other editors.) I freely concede that, despite being a prolific content creator on Wikipedia for almost ten years (the anniversary will be in October), the stress of high-profile articles about ongoing political campaigns in which content is highly controversial and no edit can stand for long without clear consensus is too much for me and that my interpersonal skills when navigating that minefield were sub-par. I would like to think that I have matured since the previous incidents, but to avoid any recidivism I am convinced that it would be better if I just stayed away—articles like that do not bring out the best in me. However, these considerations have not impaired my ability to contribute well-documented content to articles on world politics and history such as Korean War that are tangentially related to AP2. Furthermore, during these past seven months I have reflected on the fact that I can no longer make many of the edits that I care most about due to partisan squabbles that seem to pale in significance by comparison. Admittedly, I have no-one to blame but myself for that predicament, but given the time that has elapsed and that sanctions are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, I ask that you consider my appeal. Thank you for reading,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, thanks for this extensive statement. I regret to say that I do not currently have the time to read through your contributions of the past months to determine whether there are reasons to maintain the topic ban. Therefore, I am going to take you at your word and lift it, noting this in the enforcement log. Take care. Sandstein 20:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleted page - Sandeep JL

Hi Sandstein,

This is in reference to a wiki notification saying you deleted the following page. https://en.wikiredia.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandeep_JL

I would like to update the page again with data that can be referenced from other authority sources. I would highly appreciate if you can guide me and let me know what was the major reason for deleting the page.

This page is about my friend who's from my home town, and is working hard to get to Hollywood. A page in Wiki would be of great help in his future endeavours.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers! Matt.

I'm not working on the site "Wikiredia.com" and can't help you with it. Sandstein 10:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Brandon Tatum

Greetings Sandstein. I think I recall that you don't do restoration of articles you deleted? What protocol should I follow to have this article moved to draft space.so I can see what was there and possibly work on it? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, ask WP:REFUND. Sandstein 19:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Undeleting a corporate profile page

Hi there,

Ive been asked to look into why a page was deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tickmill

im not an expert in the ins and outs of wikipedia but it looks like some of the references had issues when looking at the deletion/Tickmill notes page

It says... Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP, promotional cruft K.E. coffman (7th Dec 2018)

Does this mean the page was too promotional (is that what kruft means?)?

how would i go about creating a page that would be accepted and can this replace the one deleted?

are there any guides on such a thing?

thanks for your help

Mark

Are you affiliated with Tickmill? Sandstein 15:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

im not employed by them but can get someone from there to contact you if that would help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:3E98:C000:DDFB:6C6C:D8B4:C406 (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

2A02:C7F:3E98:C000:DDFB:6C6C:D8B4:C406, No, it would not, because they would have a conflict of interest. Please read the reasons for deletion invoked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tickmill to understand what would need to be improved. Sandstein 14:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

ok thanks for that i will take a look. would it help to model a good page and produce something similar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:3E98:C000:4D18:6940:C06A:1EB5 (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not enough. You need to make the topic pass WP:GNG. Sandstein 10:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Marcel Ospel

On 28 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marcel Ospel, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Swietenia Puspa Lestari

Hi Sandstein. On 27 January 2020 you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swietenia Puspa Lestari as delete. I can see that you could reach that decision by taking the arguments at face value, but as I don't believe those arguments were accurate, I'm going to challenge the deletion. I wanted to show you the courtesy of asking you to reverse your decision, to avoid the time sink of a deletion review. --RexxS (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, there's no way I could close an unanimous discussion other than as "delete". Unless you have very convincing arguments that both editors were mistaken? Sandstein 14:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Well the only policy mentioned between the nominator and the single commentator was BLP1E, which is only an argument to merge into the parent event, not for deletion. You can see the current state of the article at Draft:Swietenia Puspa Lestari with a bunch of reliable sources covering Lestari in depth, and showing four different 'events' (years apart) that she's received coverage for. I can't see how the subject fails GNG or BLP1E.

The reason I'm so late coming to you is that I wanted to see if the AfC process was a viable means of recovering articles that should be notable. As you can see, after 3 months of waiting, the draft was declined by an AfC reviewer because "Article does not present a strong argument to overturn the previous AFD decision." That, of course, presents a catch-22: any article deleted at AfD will never get through a future AfC if the reviewers simply rely on the AfD as authoritative. That's a concern for me and I intend to take it up at the AfC project, as I believe that AfC reviewers should be reviewing the article as they see it now. None of this is anything to concern you, but I wanted to at least let you know I'm probably going to have to open a deletion review as the only route available in this case. Thanks for your thoughts. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, I'm pinging the other participants DGG and Bearian so that they can comment on whether the draft addresses their concerns. Sandstein 10:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandstein. That's most helpful and I appreciate it. --RexxS (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No to re-creation. When a person has been new to Wikipedia, we have assumed good faith and tried not to attack new users. However, Wikipedia has been around as long as many college students now, and what it is and its rules are well-known. It is said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. What I see here is nothing because the OP has stuck a finger in my eye as spite. I don't know how many times we have to show you WP:RS, WP:SOAP, and WP:BLP. Until at least the first issue -- unreliable sources in a BLP -- is fixed, I'm not even going to comment, will strongly oppose its re-creation, and will tag it for the issues if it goes back into main space without the primary issue being fixed. In other words, get rid of all of the Facebook and other social media references from the draft, and then I will spend time reading it. Right now, I feel insulted and abused. Ping me when that's accomplished. Good day. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Still no evidence of notability .. This is pure PR. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bearian: I'm surprised and sorry to see how acerbic that reply was. You do understand that the article was created by Sheila1988? and that I'm asking how it falls under BLP1E when Lestari has significant coverage for several different things. You don't need to show me WP:RS, WP:SOAP, or WP:BLP, but it may be worth you reviewing RS and checking whether you're sure that BBC News, CNA (news channel), The Jakarta Post, Kompas, The Irrawaddy (quoting Reuters) and the Obama Foundation fail to be reliable sources, because that's what you're going to be arguing if you're taking that line. As for WP:SOAP, that applies to draftspace, so if you're so sure that the draft breaches one of those five criteria, then take it to MfD right now, and we'll settle it there. --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, be that as it may, but without agreement by the AfD participants that the AfD's concerns have been addressed I'll not be restoring the article. Sorry. Sandstein 20:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That's okay, Sandstein, you've been very helpful and I understand that you can't do any more. I'll seek advice on whether to seek a deletion review or simply publish it and make the case at AfD. --RexxS (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, very much, RexxS for fixing the problem. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on the work by Pigsonthewing and RexxS, especially this, I withdraw my objections to the article. My original objections were based on the status of the draft article at the time. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)